meta data for this page
  •  

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
sector:waste:biological_treatment_solid_waste_disposal:start [2022/03/22 09:13] – [Recalculations] kotzullasector:waste:biological_treatment_solid_waste_disposal:start [2024/11/06 14:50] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 19: Line 19:
 All these measures have had strong impact on the formation of NMVOC, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>10</sub> and TSP so that their emissions decreased significantly since 1990. All these measures have had strong impact on the formation of NMVOC, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>10</sub> and TSP so that their emissions decreased significantly since 1990.
  
-===== Methodolgy ===== +===== Methodology ===== 
-For the estimation of NMVOC, Germany decided against the proposed EF of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019, but instead for the Tier 1 approach of the US-EPA which is also reproduced there (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, p. 5; [(EMEPEEA2019>EMEP/EEA, 2019: EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019, Copenhagen, 2019)]). According to national experts in the field, the approach of the US-EPA is more likely to produce better data, because the ratio between NMVOC (1.3 %) and CH<sub>4</sub> (98.7 %) in VOC from landfill gas is scientifically sound and assumed to be the very same in Germany. Also, already existing and published data for methane emissions from landfills, derived from the IPCC-FOD Waste Model (see NIR of Germany), can be used.+For the estimation of NMVOC, Germany decided against the proposed EF of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019, but instead for the Tier 1 approach of the US-EPA which is also reproduced there (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, p. 5; [(EMEPEEA2019>EMEP/EEA, 2019: EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019, Copenhagen, 2019)]). According to national experts in the field, the approach of the US-EPA is more likely to produce better data, because the ratio between NMVOC (1.3 %) and CH<sub>4</sub> (98.7 %) in VOC from landfill gas is scientifically sound and assumed to be the very same in Germany. Also, already existing and published data for methane emissions from landfills, derived from the IPCC-FOD Waste Model (see NIR of Germany), can be used. However, with the NIR 2023 some of the emission parameters used to estimate methane emissions have been modified (DOC for food waste, DOCf for wood/straw, half-life time for paper and wood/straw) according to the results of research projects initiated for the improvement of the German inventory reporting (Stegmann et al, 2018; S. 172-173, Table 36 [(STEGMANN2018>Stegmann et al, 2018, Überprüfung der methodischen Grundlagen zur Bestimmung der Methanbildung in Deponien, Hamburg/Stuttgart)]). As a result, the Methane emissions have changed considerably and thus the related NMVOC-emissions that are reported here.
  
 Emissions for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>10</sub> and TSP, reported under this category, are calculated using the Tier 1 approach of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019, where the emission factors are 0.033 [g/t], 0.219 [g/t] and 0.463 [g/t] (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, Table 3-1, p. 5; [(EMEPEEA2019)]). Emissions for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, PM<sub>10</sub> and TSP, reported under this category, are calculated using the Tier 1 approach of the EMEP/EEA Guidebook 2019, where the emission factors are 0.033 [g/t], 0.219 [g/t] and 0.463 [g/t] (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, Table 3-1, p. 5; [(EMEPEEA2019)]).
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 **EM = AD * EF** **EM = AD * EF**
 +
 +As stated above the AD in use comprise the total amount of solid waste deposited above-ground, meaning, that all mineral wastes (mineral/construction/demolition) are also included. Remaining fractions of these wastes (mineral/construction/demolition) go to underground landfills and therefore do not play a part in dust emissions. 
  
 ==== Activity data ==== ==== Activity data ====
Line 36: Line 38:
  
 ===== Uncertainties ===== ===== Uncertainties =====
-The AD from Statistisches Bundesamt usually have an uncertainty of ±3% whereas the uncertainties for the PMs and TSP emission factors, according to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, Table 3-1, p. 5), were estimated to be: 
  
 +The AD from Statistisches Bundesamt usually have an uncertainty of ±3% whereas the uncertainties for the PMs and TSP emission factors, according to the EMEP/EEA Guidebook (Part B, 5.A, chap. 3.2.2, Table 3-1, p. 5), were estimated as:
 +
 +__Table 1: Uncertainty estimates of PM emission factors__
 ^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>  |  -99% / +385%  | ^ PM<sub>2.5</sub>  |  -99% / +385%  |
 ^ PM<sub>10</sub>   |  -99% / +379%  | ^ PM<sub>10</sub>   |  -99% / +379%  |
Line 45: Line 49:
  
 ===== Recalculations ===== ===== Recalculations =====
 +
 Regular back-calculations are required annually for the previous year, since the waste statistics of the Federal Statistical Office are published with a one-year delay for the data on the quantities and compositions of waste deposited, so that the current reporting year must therefore be estimated. The estimate is replaced in the following year with the then current data.\\ Regular back-calculations are required annually for the previous year, since the waste statistics of the Federal Statistical Office are published with a one-year delay for the data on the quantities and compositions of waste deposited, so that the current reporting year must therefore be estimated. The estimate is replaced in the following year with the then current data.\\
 +
 Since the recalculation required as a result is very small overall in each year, it will not be reported additionally here. Since the recalculation required as a result is very small overall in each year, it will not be reported additionally here.
  
 However, in this year's reporting the need for correction of PM and TSP is higher than usual and thus a recalculation is reported (see following table). However, in this year's reporting the need for correction of PM and TSP is higher than usual and thus a recalculation is reported (see following table).
  
-Recalculation: PM+TSP-emissions from SWDS +__Table 2: Revised 2020 PM and TSP emissions, in [t]__ 
-^             ^           | **2019**  | +|                      ^  PM<sub>2.5</sub>  ^  PM<sub>10</sub>  ^  TSP      ^ 
-| PM 2.5 [t]  | NIR 2022  | 1,4398    | +^ current submission   |  1,3628            |  9,0442           |  19,1209  | 
-|             | NIR 2021  | 1,5043    | +^ previous submission  |  1,4398            |  9,5553           |  20,2013  | 
-| PM 10 [t]   | NIR 2022  | 9,5553    | + 
-|             | NIR 2021  | 9,9833    | +Additionally, as already stated above, in this year’s reporting, some of the emission parameters for the estimation of methane emissions from solid waste disposal have been modified (see respective chapter of the NIR 2023), leading to a considerable change. Due to the fact that the method for the estimation of NMVOC emissions is directly linked to the CH4 amounts estimated by using the IPCCs FOD-Model, the NMVOC-emissions are also affected and recalculated as shown in the following table: 
-| TSP [t]     | NIR 2022  | 20,2013   | +
-|             | NIR 2021  | 21,1062   |+
  
-Additionally, in this year’s reporting, the density of methane used for the calculations was consolidated with other inventory categories. The value was adjusted from 0.716 to 0.717 kg/m³. This results in a very small change in reported NMVOC emissions over the entire time series. Due to their insignificance, the changes are not explicitly reported here.+__Table 3: Revised NMVOC emissions, in [kt]__ 
 +|                      ^  1990   ^  1995   ^  2000   ^  2005   ^  2010  ^  2015  ^  2016  ^  2017  ^  2018  ^  2019  ^  2020  ^ 
 +^ current submission   | 17,495  | 17,808  | 12,358  | 7,696   | 4,241  | 2,442  | 2,191  | 2,015  | 1,856  | 1,612  | 1,399  | 
 +^ previous submission  | 18,018  | 18,868  | 13,904  | 10,042  | 6,642  | 4,707  | 4,409  | 4,186  | 3,979  | 3,786  | 3,567  |
  
 <WRAP center round info 60%> <WRAP center round info 60%>
-For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2019**, please see the pollutant specific recalculation tables following [[general:recalculations:start|chapter 8.1 - Recalculations]].+For **pollutant-specific information on recalculated emission estimates for Base Year and 2020**, please see the recalculation tables following [[general:recalculations:start|chapter 8.1 - Recalculations]].
 </WRAP> </WRAP>